Hi Taylor, Yes, we're happy to support it from Haskell.org.
One additional ask from our side would be that the raw results are published as well, but I saw in the issue you're already planning on doing that. Cheers Jasper On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:18:30AM -0400, Taylor Fausak wrote: > We’re one week out from the release of the survey. I plan on spending this > weekend putting the finishing touches on it. Can I plan on announcing it as > the official state of Haskell 2018 survey, supported by both Haskell Weekly > and Haskell.org <http://haskell.org/>? > > > On Oct 17, 2018, at 7:00 PM, Jasper Van der Jeugt <m...@jaspervdj.be> wrote: > > > > Hi Taylor, > > > > Just a small comment: I would like to keep the survey open a bit longer -- > > I would suggest two weeks. This gives us a bit more time to push it out > > twice to as many channels as possible (once at the start and a reminder > > after a week or so). My intuition is that we'll be able to gather > > significantly more responses that way. > > > > Thanks again for organizing this! > > > > Cheers > > Jasper > > > > On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 at 00:55, Taylor Fausak <tay...@fausak.me > > <mailto:tay...@fausak.me>> wrote: > > Thank you all for the wonderful feedback so far! I greatly appreciate all > > of it. > > > > I didn’t mean to be exclusionary with my language before, and I thank y’all > > for correcting me there. “We’re doing this together for the benefit of all” > > is an excellent way to say what I’m shooting for here. > > > > My goal for the survey is to be useful to many different groups of people: > > the GHC team, library authors, application developers, repository > > maintainers, prospective employees, hiring managers, community organizers, > > and no doubt many more groups that I’m not thinking of right now. I want to > > avoid results that are neat but not useful. I also want to avoid results > > that simply throw fuel onto common flame wars. > > > > Last year I announced the survey results and provided some commentary. I > > suspect I’ll do something similar this year, although reading your comments > > here makes me want to do less analyzing in favor of simply publishing. I am > > not particularly adept at analyzing survey results and am bound to make > > some rookie mistakes. In fact, one of the reasons that I published the > > results last year was so that someone who actually knew what they were > > doing could slice and dice the data. > > > > As far as scheduling is concerned, I plan to keep the survey open for a > > week, from November 1st to 7th. Publishing the results should happen > > relatively quickly after that. I slowed myself down last year by rendering > > a bunch of graphs, and even so I published on November 15th. > > > > It sounds like the Haskell.org committee is broadly in favor of backing the > > upcoming Haskell Weekly survey. Is that correct? In either case, what are > > the next steps? > > > > > On Oct 16, 2018, at 5:10 PM, Boespflug, Mathieu <m...@tweag.io > > > <mailto:m...@tweag.io>> wrote: > > > > > > Since I was pinged up-thread, might as well chime in. If only to say > > > "I agree": selection bias is what it is. Taylor's efforts to come to > > > this committee are laudable. And really could help mitigate some > > > issues we've seen with other surveys. Selection bias isn't something > > > worth agonizing over, provided we're careful to say in the analysis of > > > the results: "We found that X% of the respondents of this survey use > > > Y", not "X% of Haskell devs use Y". > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 21:02, Simon Peyton Jones via Haskell-community > > > <haskell-community@haskell.org <mailto:haskell-community@haskell.org>> > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> | Hi Taylor. I like the way you pose things here: "I don't expect that > > >> | to remove selection bias, but it will let me (us, really) say: We're > > >> | doing this together for the benefit of all sides". I think that's a > > >> | better place to start from. > > >> > > >> I like this too -- and like Gershom, I'd delete "sides". We aspire > > >> to work together, not on different sides. > > >> > > >> | earlier I've been thinking about a bit, where you wrote: "My goal is > > >> | for this survey to be *the* authoritative Haskell survey and for the > > >> | community to broadly accept it's results." > > >> > > >> This sounds a bit too exclusive to me, and implicitly critical of other > > >> work. Better to stick to the positives: you simply want the > > >> opinions of a broad constituency on a broad range of questions. > > >> > > >> | Anyway, this is all a long-winded way of suggesting that it might be > > >> | good if the purpose of the survey was explicitly set out as trying to > > >> | inform developers of haskell libraries and tools (and educational > > >> | materials) regarding the systems their potential users work on and > > >> | develop, and their habits and practices in doing so, and where they > > >> | encounter difficulty. That is explicitly as a way of learning rather > > >> | than as any sort of horse-race or popularity contest. > > >> > > >> That sounds good to me -- but again in drafting the goals I'd stick > > >> to the positives, and not speak about horse-races. > > >> > > >> Simon > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Haskell-community mailing list > > >> Haskell-community@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org> > > >> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community > > >> <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Haskell-community mailing list > > Haskell-community@haskell.org <mailto:Haskell-community@haskell.org> > > http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community > > <http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community> > > -- > > Jasper > _______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community
